Presumably, you'd be able to designate certain numbers as "security cleared", just like you can do on phones with normal security in the US.
Nokia phones for some time have allowed users to designated emergency numbers that are allowed to dial-out if their phone is locked. Most people set these to their home phone numbers (the only number that will dial out is the number of their home, so that if their phone is stolen, the first call made will be to their home) or 911, so that if they have their phone locked in an accident or something, they can call for emergency without having to remember the password in a pinch.
Personally I think the whole idea of password protecting my cell is ridiculous, but I suppose there are some people in sensitive places that need to have their phones protected against thefts and things. Like Paris Hilton.
I'm always puzzled by technology "insiders" writing about groups that are "destroying products" that "mainstream developers" want to use.
Reality check: "Mainstream developers" are people who a) pay nothing to use the software and b) have no product alliegiance whatsoever.
People are using PHP because it's useful and it's free. But being free doesn't help Zend in any way. They're changing the direction of the product slowly so that they'll eventually make some profit off of either PHP itself or PHP-addons using their server language / server engine.
My Philosophy: Unless you're paying for a product, or actively developing for the product, don't bitch when the people who *do* need money because they're the ones making the product decide they want to change it.
By the way, I use PHP quite a bit, and haven't really noticed that much of a difference from PHP4 to PHP5. Some small things, but nothing earth shattering.
How is Koko capable of saying anything without using anything close to proper grammar? Even based on the loosest analysis, she's capable of showing some language-type signs that people rework into the thoughts they think she's having. I think a far more strict and fair analysis would be that Koko is capable of a) repeating known signs that are viewed as rewarding, b) matching signs to her behavioral state, and c) noticing associations between signs based on the context in which they are presented.
There are plenty of creatures that can express behavior based on a set of circumstances. Language is something that must be *different* from this.
Read an example article: "http://www.pbs.org/teachersource/scienceline/arch ives/aug99/aug99.shtm". It's clear that the author is doing far more interpretting than Koko is doing language. Sure, Koko knows signs for some interesting things, and Koko may have even formed her own associations, but taken from a skeptical viewpoint, Koko knows not *language*, but association.
From what I understand, Koko is heavily rewarded for formulating and behaviorally displaying anything that sounds remotely like a proper thought a language-using creature might have. While you're right - there is some promising evidence that animals may possess some of the rudiments of language - I think it's fair to say that Koko and other great apes don't really have some of the linguistic abilities they are often ascribed by the people who write science articles for the media.
Koko is capable of using pseudo-language. Real language is generative and recombinatorial.
Koko and other gorillas/chimps/bonobos can do things like "me me food me me me food", "banana give banana give banana me banana" or identify symbols that stand for people or objects. Some can count (see Alex the parrot, very cool stuff). But none actually use a real language.
I feel somewhat justified to answer *this* question as I do research on animal cognition.
I'm hardly the person to ask on this, but I think I may be able to provide some insight. Language acquisition seems to be fundamentally different from learning the solutions to other types of problems. Computer code is a very additive learning process - it can be taught most easily (I think) by teaching it as a combination of pre-existing skills. It heavily involves mathematics, logic, "common sense", and breaking down a complex problem into many component parts.
Linguistics appears to be totally opposite. Though there are animals that can learn very basic linguistic abilities, though they are able to do many things that *look* like language, no chimpanzee, gorilla, or other (dolphins, etc) has ever been shown to actually use language. Likewise, no matter how much fundamental knowledge of grammar you possess, translating that knowledge into easily learning another language as a fluent language is extrodinarily difficult or even impossible (I'm learning two dead languages, Latin and Greek, so I feel confident to make this sort of statement).
Children aren't good at doing all of the componentry involved in learning computer code. It's impossible to explain memory allocation to someone who doesn't yet possess the ability to understand basic math (it's hard to teach it to someone who DOES understand basic math!).
I think the best age, personally, is someplace in upper middle school - around grade 7 or 8. Once you've got algebra, functions and expressions make logical sense. Proofs - geometry and others - make a great corrolary to code. You're given a set of known commands and asked to solve a larger problem.
So, anyway. Right before geometry, and continuing through it, probably would be the best time.
I'm not one that would ever say violence in videogames causes school shootings or any of that, but I think the link you're trying to make is tenuous at best, and probably just downright wrong.
While it can be argued that there are redeeming factors in Halo 2 (strategy, hand-eye coordination, etc), most of them pale in comparison to the literary value of a Shakespeare play. I think you would find it difficult to argue that the lessons of characterization, tragedy, meter, poetry, and theatre are somehow equivalent to those taught by Halo 2. Sure, there's violence in both, but there are highly redeeming qualities in Shakespeare outside of the violence.
It's a little bit like the arguement that "Lolita" is equivalent to videos of Child Pornography.
The biggest reason they would care is the return expense.
Supposing you aren't allowed entry into the country because you fail at a security check, as far as I understand it, they're responsible for sending you back to where you came from.
It's probably cost-effective for them to ask customers the security questions pre-flight.
I hate being involved with flame wars, but his point was that the forged documents are drawing attention away from Bush's AWOL story, and you proved his point (supposedly) by mentioning the documents instead of the AWOL story.
The argument is absolutely circular, if you admitted Bush went AWOL and forgot about the documents, he would be right, and if you say the documents are forgeries and bullshit evidence, he's right (so he says) because you're focusing on the Documents and not the AWOL itself.
That being said, I still think you, Atzanteol, are correct. The documents are crap. That's what the story was about.
Not likely. Republicans would have just blamed the liberal media, just as Democrats are now blaming the liberal media (and exit/internet pollsters) for overstating their position.
"The Media" is a real easy target to blame, because it basically refers to everything that's been said about you and anything that's supposed to alter people's perceptions about you. I mean, on the surface, blaming the media makes sense, but when you look at it a little deeper, The Media is obviously involved in the public's vote, since The Media is essentially what "educates" the public.
Anything you read, even government documents, have been written in such a way as to project an opinion or include a bias. There's no such thing as "unbiased reporting". Some reporting is factually inaccurate (that's why these people are getting fired, or so they say), some reporting is factually accurate but draws incorrect or very shaky conclusions (Michael Moore is basically the champion of this, with sentences like, "Could Bush have been plotting TO KILL YOU?), some reporting is factually accurate and draws correct conclusions when approached by the specific type of bias with which you read the media.
It would have been different because someone else was blaming "The Media", but other than that, probably not.
I'm an about-to-graduate college student. I'd just like to chime in, and figured replying to someone who made an intelligent post was a good place to start.
I spent a significant amount of time on the computer from grade 8 to grade 12, and I'd say that I *still* spend quite a lot of time on the machine when there's nothing else to do. That being said, I have a great relationship, a good job, good academics, and some good friends.
Being able to program has been a huge influence on my college career. But I think that programming is a bit like athletics or music or any other common adolescent pursuit these days - it's not a question of being *taught*, it's a question of interest.
Sure, you can learn in a programming class just like you can learn in a music class or an art class, but - and I'm sure you've noticed this - the motivated students are the ones who succeed in each pursuit. Especially at the highschool level, motivation has a lot to do with success. I think in general, kids are a lot less likely to succumb to the pressure that "failing is cool" (because it is, in highschool - you don't want to be a "nerd") if you've given them an opportunity to prove that interest, motivation, and effort have rewards both in the classroom and outside of it.
I think the computer is a far different type of "tool" than the car, in that it can serve many roles - gamecenter, communications device, mathematical analysis, information database, etc. There's no "right" answer as to what the computer *should* be, but at the highschool level, there's a serious conflation of activities that take place on one screen. I mean, the school-desk is a "sacred" place in some ways, because it's only used to do work; the computer is tainted by the fact it's used to do work, play games, talk to friends, etc. This also makes it more difficult to monitor, from a parental standpoint.
Okay, this turned into a ramble, but I suppose the point is, I don't think kids should have their exposure to computers limited if they're interested in using them to create and challenge their minds. In that way, they're not much different from most other forms of activity. Crayola crayons don't talk back either, neither does the bucket of sand. There are infinite combinations of colors and commands available at the keyboard as well. So long as they're building *some* skillset, they can be a useful educational tool.
"The fact there there are still vulnerabilities should come as a surprise to no one."
The only reason it's surprising to me, is that these are bugs that have been already fixed.
It wouldn't be a slashdot story if it read, "the Bugzilla for the Firefox project notes that in version.8 and.9, it was possible to spoof a URL by doing some nasty tricks. Here's the technical data." Or, "old release notes indicate bugs were fixed. If you want some demonstrations of these old bugs, click here!"
Two: A guided, strong college curriculum pays higher dividends than trying to learn on your own.
The guy who posted in a Ph.D. in neuroscience (spec., visual neuroscience). Trust me, you don't learn neuro from reading about it, you learn neuro from being in a lab, tinkering with experiments, reading the data, and trying to discover new things. You can't do surgery in the library.
The library and internet in the hands of a motivated man are very useful, but they don't equal the experience of learning from a trusted and qualified advisor, especially if you get to be a part of his or her research program.
The real college experience has nothing to do with being told to "shut the fuck up". Book learning is static, a college experience (by the fourth year) should be dynamic, learning the bleeding edge of things that haven't been put in the books yet. I'm sorry yours didn't turn out that way. =)
I suppose one could make the argument that the fact that Lokitorrent is a tracker makes them very much different, but since Trackers only facilitate the exchange of information [they don't actually contain any pieces of any of the infringing works themselves], it's difficult to sue *them* for copyright infringement (since they aren't distributing or in illegal possession of any of these copyrighted works).
Now, if there *were* a law that said that if one knew about copyright infringement they would be legally obligated to report it to the authorities, Lokitorrent would certainly be illegal. I'm not sure there is such a law.
I'm not saying what Loki is doing is *morally right*, I'm just saying it might be defensible.
Except for people like Kaufman, who, so far as I can tell, stay as far away from mainstream as possible, and do a good job of doing it.
The original point of the post was to show exactly that what your friend has been going through has been happening for thousands of years. Read a few plays of Plautus, they're essentially built around stock characters and stock scenes with a few rather simple plots, or Watch an American sitcom, it's exactly the same way.
It's sort of sad. But it's the way mainstream drama has worked for a long time. People don't want to watch philosophical diatribes, or watch people's "vision". Sometimes sad. But remember, the audience fuels that pressure from the studios just as much as the other way around.:-\
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably, you'd be able to designate certain numbers as "security cleared", just like you can do on phones with normal security in the US.
Nokia phones for some time have allowed users to designated emergency numbers that are allowed to dial-out if their phone is locked. Most people set these to their home phone numbers (the only number that will dial out is the number of their home, so that if their phone is stolen, the first call made will be to their home) or 911, so that if they have their phone locked in an accident or something, they can call for emergency without having to remember the password in a pinch.
Personally I think the whole idea of password protecting my cell is ridiculous, but I suppose there are some people in sensitive places that need to have their phones protected against thefts and things. Like Paris Hilton.
I'm always puzzled by technology "insiders" writing about groups that are "destroying products" that "mainstream developers" want to use.
Reality check: "Mainstream developers" are people who a) pay nothing to use the software and b) have no product alliegiance whatsoever.
People are using PHP because it's useful and it's free. But being free doesn't help Zend in any way. They're changing the direction of the product slowly so that they'll eventually make some profit off of either PHP itself or PHP-addons using their server language / server engine.
My Philosophy: Unless you're paying for a product, or actively developing for the product, don't bitch when the people who *do* need money because they're the ones making the product decide they want to change it.
By the way, I use PHP quite a bit, and haven't really noticed that much of a difference from PHP4 to PHP5. Some small things, but nothing earth shattering.
You must be trolling, right?
In article title: Not "Governer", "Governor"
BALRHGHGHASGHH!
After all. Students are paying to work for them. Not much difference between that and the EA employee benefits.
I mean, they wouldn't be very good spies if they just told you where they were.
Covert!
Maybe, years from now, when they're running -ALL- of their software under WINE, they might realize that there's a better way.
Yeah... like... booting Windows?
How is Koko capable of saying anything without using anything close to proper grammar? Even based on the loosest analysis, she's capable of showing some language-type signs that people rework into the thoughts they think she's having. I think a far more strict and fair analysis would be that Koko is capable of a) repeating known signs that are viewed as rewarding, b) matching signs to her behavioral state, and c) noticing associations between signs based on the context in which they are presented.
h ives/aug99/aug99.shtm". It's clear that the author is doing far more interpretting than Koko is doing language. Sure, Koko knows signs for some interesting things, and Koko may have even formed her own associations, but taken from a skeptical viewpoint, Koko knows not *language*, but association.
There are plenty of creatures that can express behavior based on a set of circumstances. Language is something that must be *different* from this.
Read an example article: "http://www.pbs.org/teachersource/scienceline/arc
From what I understand, Koko is heavily rewarded for formulating and behaviorally displaying anything that sounds remotely like a proper thought a language-using creature might have. While you're right - there is some promising evidence that animals may possess some of the rudiments of language - I think it's fair to say that Koko and other great apes don't really have some of the linguistic abilities they are often ascribed by the people who write science articles for the media.
Koko isn't capable of using language.
Koko is capable of using pseudo-language. Real language is generative and recombinatorial.
Koko and other gorillas/chimps/bonobos can do things like "me me food me me me food", "banana give banana give banana me banana" or identify symbols that stand for people or objects. Some can count (see Alex the parrot, very cool stuff). But none actually use a real language.
I feel somewhat justified to answer *this* question as I do research on animal cognition.
I'm hardly the person to ask on this, but I think I may be able to provide some insight. Language acquisition seems to be fundamentally different from learning the solutions to other types of problems. Computer code is a very additive learning process - it can be taught most easily (I think) by teaching it as a combination of pre-existing skills. It heavily involves mathematics, logic, "common sense", and breaking down a complex problem into many component parts.
Linguistics appears to be totally opposite. Though there are animals that can learn very basic linguistic abilities, though they are able to do many things that *look* like language, no chimpanzee, gorilla, or other (dolphins, etc) has ever been shown to actually use language. Likewise, no matter how much fundamental knowledge of grammar you possess, translating that knowledge into easily learning another language as a fluent language is extrodinarily difficult or even impossible (I'm learning two dead languages, Latin and Greek, so I feel confident to make this sort of statement).
Children aren't good at doing all of the componentry involved in learning computer code. It's impossible to explain memory allocation to someone who doesn't yet possess the ability to understand basic math (it's hard to teach it to someone who DOES understand basic math!).
I think the best age, personally, is someplace in upper middle school - around grade 7 or 8. Once you've got algebra, functions and expressions make logical sense. Proofs - geometry and others - make a great corrolary to code. You're given a set of known commands and asked to solve a larger problem.
So, anyway. Right before geometry, and continuing through it, probably would be the best time.
I'm not one that would ever say violence in videogames causes school shootings or any of that, but I think the link you're trying to make is tenuous at best, and probably just downright wrong.
While it can be argued that there are redeeming factors in Halo 2 (strategy, hand-eye coordination, etc), most of them pale in comparison to the literary value of a Shakespeare play. I think you would find it difficult to argue that the lessons of characterization, tragedy, meter, poetry, and theatre are somehow equivalent to those taught by Halo 2. Sure, there's violence in both, but there are highly redeeming qualities in Shakespeare outside of the violence.
It's a little bit like the arguement that "Lolita" is equivalent to videos of Child Pornography.
The biggest reason they would care is the return expense.
Supposing you aren't allowed entry into the country because you fail at a security check, as far as I understand it, they're responsible for sending you back to where you came from.
It's probably cost-effective for them to ask customers the security questions pre-flight.
I hate being involved with flame wars, but his point was that the forged documents are drawing attention away from Bush's AWOL story, and you proved his point (supposedly) by mentioning the documents instead of the AWOL story.
The argument is absolutely circular, if you admitted Bush went AWOL and forgot about the documents, he would be right, and if you say the documents are forgeries and bullshit evidence, he's right (so he says) because you're focusing on the Documents and not the AWOL itself.
That being said, I still think you, Atzanteol, are correct. The documents are crap. That's what the story was about.
Now leaving flamewar!
Not likely. Republicans would have just blamed the liberal media, just as Democrats are now blaming the liberal media (and exit/internet pollsters) for overstating their position.
"The Media" is a real easy target to blame, because it basically refers to everything that's been said about you and anything that's supposed to alter people's perceptions about you. I mean, on the surface, blaming the media makes sense, but when you look at it a little deeper, The Media is obviously involved in the public's vote, since The Media is essentially what "educates" the public.
Anything you read, even government documents, have been written in such a way as to project an opinion or include a bias. There's no such thing as "unbiased reporting". Some reporting is factually inaccurate (that's why these people are getting fired, or so they say), some reporting is factually accurate but draws incorrect or very shaky conclusions (Michael Moore is basically the champion of this, with sentences like, "Could Bush have been plotting TO KILL YOU?), some reporting is factually accurate and draws correct conclusions when approached by the specific type of bias with which you read the media.
It would have been different because someone else was blaming "The Media", but other than that, probably not.
Dude, the point was that there are plenty of organizations that spend every dollar you donate on helping people, and not saving their souls.
That's all he was saying. Yeesh.
I'm an about-to-graduate college student. I'd just like to chime in, and figured replying to someone who made an intelligent post was a good place to start.
I spent a significant amount of time on the computer from grade 8 to grade 12, and I'd say that I *still* spend quite a lot of time on the machine when there's nothing else to do. That being said, I have a great relationship, a good job, good academics, and some good friends.
Being able to program has been a huge influence on my college career. But I think that programming is a bit like athletics or music or any other common adolescent pursuit these days - it's not a question of being *taught*, it's a question of interest.
Sure, you can learn in a programming class just like you can learn in a music class or an art class, but - and I'm sure you've noticed this - the motivated students are the ones who succeed in each pursuit. Especially at the highschool level, motivation has a lot to do with success. I think in general, kids are a lot less likely to succumb to the pressure that "failing is cool" (because it is, in highschool - you don't want to be a "nerd") if you've given them an opportunity to prove that interest, motivation, and effort have rewards both in the classroom and outside of it.
I think the computer is a far different type of "tool" than the car, in that it can serve many roles - gamecenter, communications device, mathematical analysis, information database, etc. There's no "right" answer as to what the computer *should* be, but at the highschool level, there's a serious conflation of activities that take place on one screen. I mean, the school-desk is a "sacred" place in some ways, because it's only used to do work; the computer is tainted by the fact it's used to do work, play games, talk to friends, etc. This also makes it more difficult to monitor, from a parental standpoint.
Okay, this turned into a ramble, but I suppose the point is, I don't think kids should have their exposure to computers limited if they're interested in using them to create and challenge their minds. In that way, they're not much different from most other forms of activity. Crayola crayons don't talk back either, neither does the bucket of sand. There are infinite combinations of colors and commands available at the keyboard as well. So long as they're building *some* skillset, they can be a useful educational tool.
"The fact there there are still vulnerabilities should come as a surprise to no one."
.8 and .9, it was possible to spoof a URL by doing some nasty tricks. Here's the technical data." Or, "old release notes indicate bugs were fixed. If you want some demonstrations of these old bugs, click here!"
The only reason it's surprising to me, is that these are bugs that have been already fixed.
It wouldn't be a slashdot story if it read, "the Bugzilla for the Firefox project notes that in version
Right?
His point, as far as I can tell, is twofold.
One: You get from college what you put into it.
Two: A guided, strong college curriculum pays higher dividends than trying to learn on your own.
The guy who posted in a Ph.D. in neuroscience (spec., visual neuroscience). Trust me, you don't learn neuro from reading about it, you learn neuro from being in a lab, tinkering with experiments, reading the data, and trying to discover new things. You can't do surgery in the library.
The library and internet in the hands of a motivated man are very useful, but they don't equal the experience of learning from a trusted and qualified advisor, especially if you get to be a part of his or her research program.
The real college experience has nothing to do with being told to "shut the fuck up". Book learning is static, a college experience (by the fourth year) should be dynamic, learning the bleeding edge of things that haven't been put in the books yet. I'm sorry yours didn't turn out that way. =)
> What if you created a big listing of everyone in your town, and asked people to come to you if they wanted information on anyone's profession?
>Hundreds of times a day, you'd get questions like, "Where can I find flowers?", and you'd say, "Mary, Beth, Suzie, etc".
>Suppose ten people ask, "Where can I find drugs?", and you give out the names?
>Are you doing something illegal *then*?
>> Yes.
So Google, then?
Not only that, but he republished someone else's content without permission.
On that note, when you post "copyright infringer!", don't you feel like you've swung over to the dark side?
What if you created a big listing of everyone in your town, and asked people to come to you if they wanted information on anyone's profession?
Hundreds of times a day, you'd get questions like, "Where can I find flowers?", and you'd say, "Mary, Beth, Suzie, etc".
Suppose ten people ask, "Where can I find drugs?", and you give out the names?
Are you doing something illegal *then*?
Thanks for the info =)
The strategy is the same as if you were to sue Google for providing links to torrent files (like this: google link to search for harry potter).
I suppose one could make the argument that the fact that Lokitorrent is a tracker makes them very much different, but since Trackers only facilitate the exchange of information [they don't actually contain any pieces of any of the infringing works themselves], it's difficult to sue *them* for copyright infringement (since they aren't distributing or in illegal possession of any of these copyrighted works).
Now, if there *were* a law that said that if one knew about copyright infringement they would be legally obligated to report it to the authorities, Lokitorrent would certainly be illegal. I'm not sure there is such a law.
I'm not saying what Loki is doing is *morally right*, I'm just saying it might be defensible.
Just figure it's like a one-use breath weapon with a very low chance to hit.
Except for people like Kaufman, who, so far as I can tell, stay as far away from mainstream as possible, and do a good job of doing it.
:-\
The original point of the post was to show exactly that what your friend has been going through has been happening for thousands of years. Read a few plays of Plautus, they're essentially built around stock characters and stock scenes with a few rather simple plots, or Watch an American sitcom, it's exactly the same way.
It's sort of sad. But it's the way mainstream drama has worked for a long time. People don't want to watch philosophical diatribes, or watch people's "vision". Sometimes sad. But remember, the audience fuels that pressure from the studios just as much as the other way around.